Judge Taylor Has No Serious Conflict of Interest
I am not impressed with this criticism of Judge Taylor. (Via Hot Air.) I think Judicial Watch is stretching here. If you want to criticize her for her past meddling in cases to steer them to liberal judges, I think that’s fair game. And of course, criticizing her terrible NSA opinion is a no-brainer. But straining to find financial conflicts of interest where they don’t exist — don’t bother.
Yes, I know the other side would go to town with this if the tables were turned. But that doesn’t make it a scandal. Don’t get me wrong — I have no problem with blogs reporting the facts, but I just don’t think there’s anything there.
A conservative judge sits on the board of an organization that makes gifts to the NRA. Later, that same judge casts the deciding vote in favor of the NRA in a landmark appellate decision on the Second Amendment.
Glenn Greenwald promptly immolates himself in outraged grief.
He’s survived by Rick Ellensburg and Thomas Ellers.
Good DAY, sir!
Allah (0b6127) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:18 pm[…] Update: Patterico thinks it’s no big deal, particularly when compared to some of her other ethical “idiosyncracies.” […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Judicial Watch says NSA judge might have had conflict of interest (d4224a) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:21 pmOh, there’s no doubt he would make a huge deal out of something like that.
But then again, he is not a paragon of intellectual honesty. To put it mildly.
Good DAY to you too, sir.
Patterico (88ee30) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:25 pmI don’t think Judicial Watch is being intellectually dishonest in investigating this. The code of conduct says a judge should disqualify herself if she’s a trustee of one of the parties to a case she’s sitting on. There are prudent reasons why we might not want to extend that a step further and bar her from hearing cases involving parties she’s made grants to as a trustee, but an argument to the contrary would, I dare say, pass the laugh test.
Unless, of course, you’re Rick Ellensburg, in which case Judge Taylor is right and all questions regarding her judicial acumen and/or personal integrity shall be processed in accordance with that fact.
Allah (0b6127) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:52 pmI was referring to Ellensburg when I said he is intellectually dishonest. Not Judicial Watch.
Patterico (88ee30) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:54 pmYou implied that anyone who would make a big deal out of this is intellectually dishonest.
What would Thomas Ellers say to that? I ask you.
Allah (0b6127) — 8/22/2006 @ 10:57 pmDid you know that Glenn Greenwald had a New York Times bestseller? Russ Feingold even quoted Glenn on the Senate floor.
So Good DAY, sirs. đ
Good Lt (cf8676) — 8/23/2006 @ 1:16 amI am not an attorney, nor do I have any legal background. I do, however, understand a bit about business and business ethics. Both terms, Trustee and Grants, involve serious financial and legal responsibilities. It is only simple common sense that Judge Taylor Diggs should not be directly legally and financially involved with organizations that appear before âherâ court. She has a clear conflict of interest here and should not have handled this extremely important case â period! How can she, as trustee, EVER provide funds for an organization that she, as Judge, would cause to FAIL?
NIByS (ffbfa0) — 8/23/2006 @ 1:40 amNSA Judge: Conflict of Interest?…
A Judicial Watch press release (U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest) notes the following:
PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts (8bc707) — 8/23/2006 @ 4:32 amAccording to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secr…
Wiretapping Judge and Conflict of Interest…
Judicial Watch has investigated the financial records of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the NSA electronic surveillance program unconstitutional, may have a conflict of interest.
Outside The Beltway | OTB (30d6b6) — 8/23/2006 @ 4:38 amAccording to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure stateme…
In fact the left did make a serious issue out of something similar. Justice Alito and the Vanguard case. At that time we (the right) argued it was a simple oversight. Sauce for the goose baby.
Honestly I am not sure why this is an issue. As I said over at Ace of Spades. Given that she is a liberal judge apointed by a liberal President and confirmed by a liberal Senate I just assumed she had ties to the ACLU.
chad (582404) — 8/23/2006 @ 5:37 amSuppose this case were an election dispute. If Taylor were a contributor to one of the campaigns, would she not be obligated to recuse herself?
Pablo (efa871) — 8/23/2006 @ 5:58 amThese defendants are essentially the judge’s sock-puppets.
But the real issue is not that she seized an affirmative action case having already decided it.
Nor buying the plaintiff’s lunches for the next hundred years.
Nor the hypocrisy of asserting a ‘Living Constitution’ flexible enough to encompass these plaintiffs’ Right to provide Aid & Comfort, but not flexible enough to keep the Brooklyn Bridge standing.
The question is “Does the Commander-in-Chief have the right–and duty–to seek out enemy communications in wartime without a permission slip from another branch?”
By my reading of the Constitution and case law, the answer is ‘yes’. If Congress doesn’t like it, they may impeach Bush and Cheney and install Judge Taylor and Iyman Faris.
Noel (d8da01) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:28 amCharitable grants by community foundations are very different than a direct gift by an individual. Community foundations administer a large number of donor advised funds in which the person who made the gift to the community foundation in the first place suggests the grants that should be made from the fund to other charitable organizations. While the trustees of the community foundation have the ultimate fiduciary responsibility to ensure that a suggested grant is made to a qualified charity for a worthy cause, the grant does not necessarily reflect a particular preference of the community foundation or its trustees. Patterico has the better view of this part of the story – there’s really nothing in this to complain about.
Tim (e97deb) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:32 amCorrection: should read “These plaintiffs are essentially the judge’s sock-puppets.” Although they should be ‘defendants’.
Noel (d8da01) — 8/23/2006 @ 6:48 amRe: “defendants”
“Treason against the United States, shall consist… in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless…on Confession in open Court.”
“Plaintiffs here contend that the Terrorist Surveillance Program has interfered with their ability…their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States…Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they…must communicate with…terrorist suspects or…terrorist organizations. In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate…terrorist suspects…or terrorist organizations.”
That was a confession of giving Aid to enemies of the United States, given in open court.
Noel (d8da01) — 8/23/2006 @ 9:18 amBravo, Tim. You wrote the comment I was about to make. The only thing I would add is that community foundations often have their own money (in addition to money held in donor advised funds (“DAFs”)) and make grants out of it. In order to evaluate this matter, it’s important to know whether the grant to the ACLU was from a DAF (in which case there’s absolutely no impropriety) or from the community foundation’s general funds (in which case it would be nice to have some more information about how the grant to the ACLU came about — there might or might not be some grounds for concern).
Btw, I strongly disagree with Judge Taylor’s conclusions, and it sounds like the ruling (which I haven’t read yet) was a very shoddy piece of work.
ScurvyOaks (f1b348) — 8/23/2006 @ 9:31 amI don’t agree that this is a total non-issue, but it is one step removed from being a really drastic conflict (such as if she were on the board of the ACLU rather than a board of a donor to the ACLU). Unlike in the Alito-Vanguard situation, I do think this is a conflict that would prompt a reasonable litigant to want another judge.
FWIW, it’s not a “financial” conflict – she didn’t get money from the ACLU. The issue is demonstrated support for the ACLU’s advocacy.
Crank (3fed2a) — 8/23/2006 @ 10:16 amOr, as someone quipped elsewhere, this is the first known instance of the judge buying off a plaintiff.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/23/2006 @ 10:24 amYou implied that anyone who would make a big deal out of this is intellectually dishonest.
No, I implied that Greenwald will say this is nothing, but would make a big deal out of it if the tables were turned. That’s all I meant.
Patterico (88ee30) — 8/23/2006 @ 11:01 amYou also didn’t close your italics.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/23/2006 @ 11:03 amThank you.
Patterico (88ee30) — 8/23/2006 @ 11:15 amJudge Taylor didn’t disclose her indirect financial association with the plaintiff in a high profile case.
She may or may not have a conflict of interest, that’s for others to decide, but since she declined to provide advance notification to the opposing parties of a possible conflict, she prevented the issue from being properly addressed prior to the trial.
If that’s not an ethical violation, I’d like to know the reasons why.
Black Jack (5e3718) — 8/23/2006 @ 11:26 amOK, BlackJack, here’s the scenario that would not be a problem. (This may be what happened; we don’t know yet.)
Suppose some rich liberal in Michigan wants to make a charitable contribution (and get a tax deduction) but doesn’t want to give all the money to a single tax-exempt organization at one time. So this donor gives the money to a donor-advised fund (“DAF”) at the local community foundation (“CF”).
This is perfectly legal and has been common practice for more than 30 years. There are lots of CFs all around the country, and DAFs administered by CFs have done an awful lot of good for a wide variety of charitable causes. (I’ve seen this first hand as treasurer of my church.)
Our hypothetical donor subsequently suggests to the CF that it would be a lovely idea for the DAF that he established to give $20K to the Michigan ACLU to help fund a gay rights lawyer. The donor does not have the right to require that contribution to occur; the CF has control over the funds and it is up to the CF to authorize and carry out the contribution. CFs typically make the contributions that the donors of DAFs request, provided that the recipient of the proposed contribution is actually tax-exempt and is a reputable organization. (If a CF got a reputation for frequently refusing to follow donors’ advice — well, there are a lot of CFs around.)
So Judge Taylor goes to a trustees’ meeting, and one thing on the agenda is authorization of donor-suggested contributions. If this CF has been around for a while, it probably has scores, if not hundreds, of DAFs. Who knows how many suggested contributions come up at every board meeting. The point is, it’s a long list, and by the time this has worked its way through the CF’s staff to the CF’s board of trustees, the questionable ones have either been weeded out or get their own places on the agenda for discussion and decision. She might well not even have noticed the ACLU on the list. Even if she did, she was in no sense the person causing the contribution.
If the real story is something like the scenario I’ve just laid out, then let’s please not expend any credibility on making an uninformed and groundless attack. The place to use the ammo is on the quality of Judge Taylor’s opinion.
ScurvyOaks (f1b348) — 8/23/2006 @ 2:38 pmThere’s no substitute for research. The two grants to the ACLU totalling $45,000 were made by CFSEM’s “HOPE Fund,” which focuses on the gay community. There are criteria and a process for grant applications to satisfy and go through. The decisions on grants from that fund are made by a “Grants Advisory Committee.” The 2005 report for the HOPE Fund is on CFSEM’s website and lists the members of that committee. Judge Taylor is NOT on the HOPE Foundation’s Grants Advisory Committee.
That report also includes the (long) list of donors to the HOPE Fund. Judge Taylor is not on that list either.
Bottom line: unless there’s something I’m missing, none of Judge Taylor’s money went through CFSEM to the ACLU, and she did not take part in the decisions to make these grants.
Let’s waste no more time, effort or credibility on this one. There’s no more a conflict of interest here than there was with Judge Alito’s Vanguard case.
ScurvyOaks (f1b348) — 8/23/2006 @ 5:18 pmJust who’s call is it?
Scurvy, It’s not up to you, or me. The opposing sides dependent on Judge Taylor’s impartiality are certainly entitled to know if the possibility of a conflict exists, and to have the opportunity to research the matter and decide for themselves whether to raise the issue or not.
Judge Taylor has a clear obligation to disclose possible conflicts of interest in cases which come before her. Full disclosure is the answer, failure to disclose is not an option.
I’m sorry if you don’t see the point. Maybe it’s the way I put it. Nose around a bit and read the way others are discussing the same issue.
Black Jack (5e3718) — 8/24/2006 @ 11:48 amBlackJack,
I certainly agree that it would have been preferable for her to disclose this — assuming that she was aware of these grants, which I don’t think is altogether clear.
My principal point is for those of us who disagree with her opinion. That point is that this is at worst a foot-fault. We look foolish if we try to blow it up into something more substantial than it is. That’s particularly true when there’s such a fat target out there, namely Judge Taylor’s low-quality opinion.
ScurvyOaks (f1b348) — 8/25/2006 @ 3:08 pmbrockton attorney brockton attorney
brockton attorney (e68cc4) — 8/27/2006 @ 4:56 pmnafos zumagyme gikma
ru746105 (30b2b5) — 1/28/2008 @ 4:44 pmjoki http://ru746105.je8h3jp.net/sitemap4.html [url=http://ru746105.je8h3jp.net/sitemap4.html ]hahy[/url] cyfah